1 |
On Sat, 2019-12-14 at 12:29 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
2 |
> > > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, David Seifert wrote: |
3 |
> > case "${EAPI:-0}" in |
4 |
> > - 0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7) |
5 |
> > + [01234]) |
6 |
> > + die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI:-0} (too old) for ${ECLASS}" |
7 |
> > + ;; |
8 |
> > + [567]) |
9 |
> > ;; |
10 |
> > *) |
11 |
> > die "Unsupported EAPI=${EAPI} (unknown) for ${ECLASS}" |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I know that this exists in other eclasses as well, but do we really need |
14 |
> that distinction in the error message for "too old" and "unknown" EAPIs? |
15 |
> It should be pretty clear which case applies there, especially since the |
16 |
> message is addressed at developers, not users. |
17 |
> |
18 |
|
19 |
Maybe not strictly necessary right now but it gives a clear distinction |
20 |
whether the eclass hasn't been ported *yet* vs *won't* be ported at all. |
21 |
This helps avoid people trying to add new EAPIs to eclasses that are |
22 |
being deprecated. |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Best regards, |
26 |
Michał Górny |